mardigras

What it is, is that I don't just accept opinion. And when it comes to opinion on punting, they're mostly wrong. Like all yours. That's why the majority of punters lose, like you. Listen to too much opinion, and think it is fact.

You probably think Chief De Beers was a course specialist. I doubt it, but Either way, I'd love to see you prove that.

Except as usual, you just write fairytales and nothing that supports them. You've been hoodwinked again.

Something that even anecdotally, isn't supported. What a joke. To even suggest such thing is indicative of you listening to too many wives tales, which you've converted to fairytales.

Recognise it? Of course I do. Dirt, synthetic, turf. Sure. In NZ, nope, nothing. As for faster stats, can you show me some of those.

Says you. I don't believe it. Got some actual proof or just your usual fairytales.

At this stage, because I'm yet to find a horse that their course stats/performance correlates to a change in chance. This whole idea around chance of a horse is beyond you.

As I suspected, the comprehension of a 5yo. I don't compare performance from one track to the next. I compare the performances of a horse relative to all other horses to identify the ability of the horse. To do that, I compare EVERY performance on EVERY track raced to work out the ability level of the horse I am assessing. Idiot. Try Kip McGrath. You need an education.

You're confused since my quote and your quote have zero relationship. Nothing in my quote states I don't know how my program works, since I wrote it. I know exactly how my program works since it does what I've instructed it to. Give up loser. The reference to 'track' is not related to horse track starts. Only an idiot would think it did. So I hope you weren't using that quote for that purpose. Makes me wonder why you put the quote up.

Well done. I assume you had to profit $500 from a single market and therefore the promotion was aimed at increasing turnover and not all will achieve the goal.

It may be remarkable that you backed the winner , but less so that it started from a different gate than expected imo.

I don't know who you quoted, but I haven't seen what a course specialist is as yet. And I have no plan to include course stats any time soon. If they perform better on a course, those performances help shape their ability. I don't need to include any track stats and not only do I not need to, I wouldn't want to. To change chance based on them would mean I have to reduce the chance of others. Even if they have never raced there and may be a course specialist in your terms in the near future. Nope, not for me.

I am not disagreeing. I've not suggested that barrier position is not worthy of consideration. I've said that barrier stats are not going to help you with that consideration. If you believe the barrier stats can be used, then I'm listening.

No thanks. You and Thomass could hook up and leverage each others ideas.

I'm happy about that. I don't need the research. My MO is to ignore it.

I don't give a toss what some moron 'holds dear'. It's just plain stupidity. You should have tried to get a decent education. The one you got is substandard. As for my NZ form, my pre race selections on this site are massively in profit. I guess that's what you call ably demonstrating that I'm disabled when it comes to NZ form. You prefer demonstrating how one should go about losing, loser.

You really are a twit. The comments on what you do are unrelated to what I do. They are comments on what is a flawed approach. What don't you understand about that? If I didn't bet, that wouldn't change that what you do is flawed. You cannot apply a population based rule to punting and have that rule be valid. Since the rule does not have a correlation with the chance of an individual horse winning the race it is in. Therefore it is flawed. It's why you lose, loser. I've ably demonstrated that by putting up the horse's that meet your blue print. It's not about what I do compared to you. It's about what you do, being for losers. Which you are. Simple. I've explained why. Clearly you couldn't understand it. Nothing unusual there.

If you say so porky. Not that I'd think they are useful, but I'm interested to know that if they are all different, how do you decide which ones to apply?

And then with blinkers on, course specialist and trained on the track, what's that 60%, or cumulatively around 73%. How much extra for the 3kg claimer in the wet? The only thing I've seen that is counter intuitive is the blue print. Calling a horse with one supposedly decent performance on a track, a course specialist - is nothing short of moronic.

If you really feel you want them, try https://www.racingandsports.com/form-guide/thoroughbred/new-zealand/new-plymouth/2019-01-17 And click on barrier position stats. Best advice, ignore them.

Yep, a number of their offers are targeted. But if you make it work for you Newmarket, that's all the better!

Sure is.

Thanks for giving us some more rules. These are as funny as the rest. According to you, the chance of the horse that has performed on the course has increased. Increased from what? When you assessed it's chance (which we all know you don't do), you would have already known its performance on the track. And I like it that the chances of the other horses have decreased - including those that have never raced on the track. Keep up with the generalisations, you're the king of them and that makes you the king of losers. Well done. Suddenly, when you bet, you add extra because of something like this. It's hilarious. Of course the readers know you don't actually do what you claim, since it's all just one big fairytale - isn't it loser? No wonder when given the chance to put up either selections pre race or even back that up with an assessed price - you can't do it and you run for the hills You're a fraud. And you've exposed yourself on here for all to see it.

Put my post up loser. What's a course specialist?

What's a course specialist? Put up my post saying form on the track is useless. It's already included in my assessment of the horse's ability. There's little point discussing anything with you. You still don't even understand why your blue print is flawed. And as I stated, you're a loser not worth reading.